hawl: Or, "Hope Is Not A Condom". In the midst of all this bourgeois, First-World agonizing over which brand and size condom to choose from, I thought it might be appropriate to remember the advice destitute Third Worlders get from the still-powerful Catholic Church. The advice is the same after all this time, whether about avoiding STDs, or avoiding bringing more unwanted children into the world to be dependant on the Church and its organizations-www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html (sorry, original link expired, had to change to that similar one) Also-www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031103&s=pollitt
da_blissmachine: hmm I will never understand Western religious views on sex.... when AIDS hit India, we invented a goddess of AIDS and at her temples condoms are distributed during religious services
I kid you not!
I kid you not!
47boreas: [quote author=da_blissmachine link=board=health;num=1065941489;start=0#1 date=10/12/03 at 01:26:00]hmm I will never understand Western religious views on sex.... when AIDS hit India, we invented a goddess of AIDS and at her temples condoms are distributed during religious services
I kid you not![/quote]
Hi,
Hmm, I think that you ought to have started to distribute condoms much earlier in India.
I live in a Protestant country and so we have not that kind of Catholic problems. Here in Scandinavia I know only one strictly religious Protestant group, which does not accept preventives.
Boreas
I kid you not![/quote]
Hi,
Hmm, I think that you ought to have started to distribute condoms much earlier in India.
I live in a Protestant country and so we have not that kind of Catholic problems. Here in Scandinavia I know only one strictly religious Protestant group, which does not accept preventives.
Boreas
- jonb,
[quote author=da_blissmachine link=board=health;num=1065941489;start=0#1 date=10/12/03 at 01:26:00]hmm I will never understand Western religious views on sex.... Â when AIDS hit India, we invented a goddess of AIDS and at her temples condoms are distributed during religious services
I kid you not![/quote]
I've read that, when measles hit the Amazon (at the same time as iron), their cosmology adapted so that iron caused diseases. Two anthropoologists actually became deities - with personalities like Lovecraft's elder gods.
Catholics have to maintain hard-line positions. After all, the Holy Document of Vatican Law cannot be changed. (South Park reference.)
I kid you not![/quote]
I've read that, when measles hit the Amazon (at the same time as iron), their cosmology adapted so that iron caused diseases. Two anthropoologists actually became deities - with personalities like Lovecraft's elder gods.
Catholics have to maintain hard-line positions. After all, the Holy Document of Vatican Law cannot be changed. (South Park reference.)
mindseye: [quote author=rrrrrr link=board=health;num=1065941489;start=0#0 date=10/11/03 at 23:42:29]Or, "Hope Is Not A Condom". In the midst of all this bourgeois, First-World agonizing over which brand and size condom to choose from, I thought it might be appropriate to remember the advice destitute Third Worlders get from the still-powerful Catholic Church. The advice is the same after all this time, whether about avoiding STDs, or avoiding bringing more unwanted children into the world to be dependant on the Church and its organizations-www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L0996771.htm.[/quote]
I read an interesting editoral last week in which the author compared the Catholic Church's warning against condoms to manslaughter.
I read an interesting editoral last week in which the author compared the Catholic Church's warning against condoms to manslaughter.
ORCABOMBER: Rrrrrr, good article choice. I think that while that priest and the virus size/vs sperm cell size had a point, I doubt the ratio is THAT huge. None the less, the crux of the matter is that the Church rules that safe sex is a no-no. Not even in a truely loving relationship? Na-na.
Well, then all those people who give birth to children with AIDS or have more than 5 are doing the world a favour, yes?
Well, then all those people who give birth to children with AIDS or have more than 5 are doing the world a favour, yes?
longtimelurker: [quote author=ORCABOMBER link=board=health;num=1065941489;start=0#5 date=10/21/03 at 08:36:41]Rrrrrr, good article choice. I think that while that priest and the virus size/vs sperm cell size had a point, I doubt the ratio is THAT huge. [/quote]
I think you'd be suprised. Eukaryotic (i.e. non-bacterial) cells tend to be far bigger than prokaryotic (bacterial). Obviously size difference will vary between cells, but I wouldn't be suprised at 100x at least. Viral particles will be even smaller, as they are effectively a strand of DNA (RNA for HIV) wrapped in a small amount of protein. Picking a number out of mid-air, I wouldn't think that 10,000x smaller would be impossible.
I think you'd be suprised. Eukaryotic (i.e. non-bacterial) cells tend to be far bigger than prokaryotic (bacterial). Obviously size difference will vary between cells, but I wouldn't be suprised at 100x at least. Viral particles will be even smaller, as they are effectively a strand of DNA (RNA for HIV) wrapped in a small amount of protein. Picking a number out of mid-air, I wouldn't think that 10,000x smaller would be impossible.
ORCABOMBER: This is being told to a guy studying MICROBIOLOGY!
*sigh*
I am assuming that the AIDS virus is reasonably hefty by their standards and sperm cells are small.
Aint no excuse though.
Good thing I am not a Samurai, or a lot of people in the computer room would be looking at a computer with a body slumped over it!
*sigh*
I am assuming that the AIDS virus is reasonably hefty by their standards and sperm cells are small.
Aint no excuse though.
Good thing I am not a Samurai, or a lot of people in the computer room would be looking at a computer with a body slumped over it!
HIV virus particles are smaller than sperm cells. Reliable sources put the size of an HIV virus particle at about 0.1 micron, while the human sperm has an oval head about 5 microns long, plus a slender tail about 50 microns long. So the size ratio is about 50:1, ignoring the tail. (A micron is 1/1000 of a millimeter, or about 0.00004 inches.) "Sheepskin" condoms do contain numerous pores of such a size that they are not recommended as protection against HIV. Latex condoms may also contain smaller pores. However, even if the pore is larger than the virus, the condom will still be an effective barrier. This is explained in an FDA research paper:
"FDA researchers have also developed an assay for condom leakage using high concentrations of a laboratory virus . The laboratory virus penetration assay is not used routinely as a quality control test, but its sensitivity and relevance are arguably greater than the conventional water leakage test. Using this virus assay, FDA scientists tested many different types of male condoms and showed that condoms are highly effective barriers to virus passage with a very small chance of leakage. Intact condoms (i.e., pass the water leak test) are essentially impermeable to particles the size of STD pathogens (including the smallest sexually transmitted virus, hepatitis B). Moreover, these studies show that fluid flow, not virus size, is the most important determinant of viral passage through a hole. Even holes many times larger than the virus impeded fluid flow such that few of the test particles passed through."
The complete paper may be read at http://www.niaid.nih.gov/dmid/stds/condomreport.pdf (you will need Adobe Acrobat reader).
In other words, the virus is suspended in bodily fluids, and the pore has to be large enough to allow the fluid itself to flow through. Because of viscosity and surface tension, fluids do not pass easily through very small holes.
Condoms are not completely effective, due to issues like slippage or breakage, which probably overshadow porosity concerns. However, they are vastly safer than unprotected sex.
"FDA researchers have also developed an assay for condom leakage using high concentrations of a laboratory virus . The laboratory virus penetration assay is not used routinely as a quality control test, but its sensitivity and relevance are arguably greater than the conventional water leakage test. Using this virus assay, FDA scientists tested many different types of male condoms and showed that condoms are highly effective barriers to virus passage with a very small chance of leakage. Intact condoms (i.e., pass the water leak test) are essentially impermeable to particles the size of STD pathogens (including the smallest sexually transmitted virus, hepatitis B). Moreover, these studies show that fluid flow, not virus size, is the most important determinant of viral passage through a hole. Even holes many times larger than the virus impeded fluid flow such that few of the test particles passed through."
The complete paper may be read at http://www.niaid.nih.gov/dmid/stds/condomreport.pdf (you will need Adobe Acrobat reader).
In other words, the virus is suspended in bodily fluids, and the pore has to be large enough to allow the fluid itself to flow through. Because of viscosity and surface tension, fluids do not pass easily through very small holes.
Condoms are not completely effective, due to issues like slippage or breakage, which probably overshadow porosity concerns. However, they are vastly safer than unprotected sex.
longtimelurker: Ooookay - I guess that is why I should spend the 3 mins to find a website rather than grasping numbers out of thin air! Sperm cells are a lot smaller than I thought! :-[
Still - I think the size disparity is due to the small size of the sperm cell compared to most mammalian cells (which as a gamete wouldn't need the cellular machinery of most cells) rather than a freakishly large HIV particle (compared to other viruses). After all, white blood cells need to produce thousands of the things for the virus to replicate, so it can't be that big!
Still - I think the size disparity is due to the small size of the sperm cell compared to most mammalian cells (which as a gamete wouldn't need the cellular machinery of most cells) rather than a freakishly large HIV particle (compared to other viruses). After all, white blood cells need to produce thousands of the things for the virus to replicate, so it can't be that big!
ORCABOMBER: LTL, Eric, good calls.
Unfortunately, "the almighty" doesn't share your views on the matter!
Well, in general, viruses are insanely small (close enough to the atomic level sometimes), but thanks for clearing the condom issue up.
I've had a look at the AIDS virus at uni, is it me, or is it too perfect?
Unfortunately, "the almighty" doesn't share your views on the matter!
Well, in general, viruses are insanely small (close enough to the atomic level sometimes), but thanks for clearing the condom issue up.
I've had a look at the AIDS virus at uni, is it me, or is it too perfect?